August 20, 2010
-
Paralyzing a Convict
A Saudi judge is looking into the possibility of having a convict’s spine damaged so that he will be paralyzed.
The man was convicted of “attacking another man with a cleaver and paralyzing him.”
Under Islamic law, the man can receive the same punishment. So the judge is checking with hospitals to see if they will injure the man’s spine. Here is the link: Link
If the man attacked and paralyzed another man with a cleaver, do you think he deserves to be paralyzed too?
Comments (84)
if we didn’t need Saudi oil, we wouldn’t be as polite to these pricks.
Wow
Dang I am relieved I do not live there.
hmm… was it self defense?
No?
Eye for an eye.
eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind
yes. like they say – an eye for an eye
If it was intentional, then yes, I believe he does deserve it. My question is whether humans should actually be allowed to make that decision and take karma into their own hands. I’m not sure that’s our right.
No.
np………………..
Yes. If criminals got what they gave there would be a lot less crime.
NO………………………………….
under Islamic law, yes. because without Islamic law all they would have would be Islamic anarchy. if it aint broke don’t fix it.
@ayceeeeeer - Too bad that’s from a man from a different religion than theirs.
Meh. I can’t really argue with different cultures. They’ve been practicing this way for thousands of years, so for them it’s their version of our death penalty.
No.
I’m glad i’m not a doctor or a judge in Saudi Arabia. That’s all.
I can’t answer this question fully, if harm was inflicted out of violence towards one of my family members I might feel the same way the victims family or even the victim felt… as of now it doesn’t sound right to go to hospitals due to a court order to inflict a damaged spine on somebody.
No.
He deserves it. But that doesn’t mean they should do it.
Whoa…heavy question.
See, the thing is, I’m all for punishments like this, but I can’t really justify the person who inflicts said punishment. I mean, sure, the guy “deserves” it (in our/your/their minds, based on the information we have), but who has the right to do it back to him? We say he deserves it because he did it and it was so terrible. So the answer is to make someone else, an innocent person – judge, doctor, law enforcement, whomever – commit the same exact heinous act? There’s such a bizarre disconnect, some disturbing feeling that gives me, and that’s why I can’t support punishments like this. It’s like the death penalty – there are plenty of criminals I truly feel deserve to die, but I do not feel that any of us has the right to kill a person because they killed a person. It makes them just as bad, and it must have mental side effects, and it just doesn’t work in my head. Maybe I’m rambling. But I just can’t get on board with punishments like this, if only because I don’t think people should be asked or forced to do heinous things in the name of punishing people who do heinous things. That vicious cycle kind of thing.
@Alyxandri - Heh, you said what I wanted to say, but so much more succinctly
It is sad that cases like this exist. The point of “an eye for an eye” (if you go by what Jesus said -whom Islam recognizes as a prophet-) was to set the limit to the legal extent of the punishment and not to set the requirement thereof. It was in this same vein that Jesus told the people what we find in Matthew 5:38-48.
@Alyxandri - Agreed. Whose the judge to inflict that sort of harm, even if the guy does deserve it? I can only hope that karma deals with that guy in an equal way.
i don’t know…to be honest.
It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks, they will do what they want to do anyway. Does he deserve to be paralyzed also? I’m not sure I don’t know the circumstances of why he attacked the other man. He does deserve some sort of punishment whether that is prison time or something else. Every country does things differently. America is WAY too lenient the majority of the time. Cons don’t deserve compassion.
interesting that they want a hospital to do it. that’s rather ‘humane’ of them. Disturbing too.
I’ve never been big on the “eye for an eye” thing, but paralyzing someone? with a meat cleaver? Maybe paralyzing the attacker is taking things a little too far, but he does deserve at least a hefty time in prison.
You know the old saying – “An elbow for an elbow and a toe nail for a toe nail.”
Yes, he deserves it.
That doesn’t mean I agree with it…I do to some extent, but there is a difference between the fair punishment and the proper (for lack of a better word because I’m stuck on stupid today) punishment.
That’s an interesting way to go about the law. It kind of makes sense. I guess technically, nobody can claim “an eye for an eye” unless they’re against the death penalty. (Which I’m not sure if I am or not – so not trying to spark any arguments.)
Considering that people could be set up as guilty when in fact they’re not……….
*shrug*
*blink*
Well wait a minute; if he was really guilty, yes I guess… I’m torn between vindictiveness & forgiveness.
As a Christian I can’t support tit for tat living, even from the authorities (since I believe they were brought about by and for Jesus who told us not to live a tit for tat lifestyle). Does he deserve it? Sure, I guess. Should it be done? I don’t think so.
that’s so fucking wrong.
It is proportionate, is it not?
Many countries around the world still operate on this principle. It’s also still allowed to severe the arm of someone caught stealing, right then and there. It is an interesting system. Not exactly “civilized” by western standards but an effective deterrent.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Just my point of view.
He does need to be punished if he did this from malicious intent.
Does he deserve it? Absolutely. You go after somebody with a fucking cleaver, and you deserve what you fucking get.
Does the state have a right to enforce it upon him? Perhaps. The state exists to monopolise the use of force, and has the right to apply that force in pursuit of the aims of law and order. While deterrence is of limited value in law enforcement; corporal punishment, especially administered publicly, is one of the most effective deterrents available. Conversely, this action is offensive to some concepts of human rights or morality.
Can a doctor square doing so with the ethical requirements of his profession? Absolutely not.
“an eye for an eye” was actually a code for limiting punishment, and was never intended to be taken literally. Called lex talionis in legal circles, and originating as early as the Code of Hammurabi, it is the basis for the tort system that is the primary business of the civil courts.
“An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.”
This hearkens back to Hammurabi, the Babylonian monarch. It was very enlightened back in the second millennium BC. It’s still more enlightened than the hanging, drawing and quartering, etc. that seemed to dominate European law for centuries.
But real karmic justice? Make the guy the victim’s pack animal for the rest of their lives
@BobRichter - Kudos. You said it better than I did.
It depends if it was malicious or not. Was it his intent to permanently maim this other fellow? If it was, then yet. He knew the law before he did it. It would be different if this was something a judge just came up with, but it’s accepted law in Saudi, eye for an eye. They also chop off your left hand if you get caught stealing (though I’ll save you the details as to why the left hand…)
Of course that is something that wouldnt even be CONSIDERED here in the US…thank goodness!! I don’t believe that this is something that should happen anywhere but unfortunately other countries don’t agree with me!!! My heart goes out to the Doctor who is going to be forced to do something like this to this man….it would go against everything that a doctor wants to do with his skills. “First do no harm” would go out the window…wouldnt it?
I have no problem castrating those convicted of heinous sex crimes, but this makes me squirm.
@ItsWhatEyeKnow - Why do you suppose that is? Aggravated assault leading to grievous and permanent injury is really no less heinous than any sex crime short of homicide.
Could it be that since the spine is more universally shared and of somewhat greater utility, you have a greater sympathy for the injury in question?
@BobRichter - I think making it more difficult for a sex offender to have sex is easier for me to live with than taking away someone’s mobility. You’re right though. Aggravated assault is no less heinous! I would hate to be a law maker with the final decision on this one.
Despite people here saying otherwise, they’ve done studies saying that eye for an eye actually works the best for curbing crime which is why it was so pronounced in those old Hammurabian societies apparently. Very Machiavellian, that fear.
@ayceeeeeer - Yes, the quote I was looking for.
He may deserve it..but should he get it? That’s the questions we have to keep asking ourselves…
Would that make him poop himself?
Gotta love them Saudis…
I’ve written piles of essays about the political exploitation of religion in countries like Saudi Arabia, and honestly… in a situation like this, I think we need a bit more information.
If the man1 attacked man2 with the sole intention of hurting him without reason, then yes, he deserves the punishment. This kind of relates to my theory that pedophiles should be castrated.
If it was self-defense (i.e. man2 was trying to kill man1), and the paralysis was just an unfortunate result of that, then no, he doesn’t deserve the punishment.
I believe that we can learn a lot from our Middle Eastern friends. They have great wisdom and there is a whole lot they can teach us, as evidenced by how their technology is so far ahead of ours.
It’s interesting that the “eye for an eye” passage is so misunderstood and used out of context. If you read the entire passage where Jesus is speaking, he goes on to say that we should turn the other cheek, be kind to our enemies, etc., and that vengeance is not our responsibility, but that of the Lord. So I think it’s entirely misused in order to pass harsh punishments. However, I think punishments to need to be carried out by authorities which will deter a criminal from repeating.
pwn not lest ye be pwned
@ayceeeeeer - exactly.
@WordsandThoughts - I was thinking the exact same thing and you already took it
Why wouldn’t he deserve it? Of course he does, if the facts are as clear as you present them. As to whether I’d be in favor of it, I’d have to know more about how effective their justice system is at determining guilt.
I don’t think it’s right when I’m in logical-mode and not in any way connected to the people being discussed, but if someone did that to someone I cared about I would probably take revenge (and a cleaver) into my hands.
Christ Jesus. No. Ugh. Eye for an eye laws are brutal.
If it’s part of their laws that would be eye for an eye, then it’s their law.
I hate to say it but I agree with it. if you ruined someone’s life, you forfeit your life as well.
It would seem more productive to have the offender provide life long reparation rather than retribution. Inflicting pain on someone else doesn’t improve my quality of life.
i think if these practices were instated in the united states… there would be alot less crime… sometimes karma needs a swift kick/ jumpstart to move things along..
sick
Islamic law is almost entirely based on Christian law, which is almost entirely based on Jewish law.
I am very glad America is not a Christian nation based on biblical law.
wow this is taken too the extreme…
@polarpaul - I don’t think it’s about making the victim’s life any better, or even about punishing the criminal as much as it is about deterring people from coming close to doing that again, and enforcing their eye-for-an-eye law. It may be of (very) little to no consolation to the victim that “your criminal’s paralyzed now”, but it gets the message across.
Damn, those Saudi’s don’t screw around do they?
Do the doctors over there follow the Hippocratic Oath: “Do no harm”? Because I would think that would prevent any doctor from agreeing to such a thing.
An abomination to the Hippocratic oath.
An eye for an eye is ridiculous.
“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind,” but hell, if someone half-blinds you and he still has BOTH eyes and has already proven himself violent, do you really want to continue to allow him that advantage? I sure wouldn’t! I’d even the odds as soon as possible!
That being said (as I am truly only nitpicking) I think equal punishments make sense. If he did that then he deserves it, depending on the circumstances. If it was self-defense or he was whacking the guy for raping his daughter or something I think he should get off scott-free. But if he was just being an ass then ehh, I guess he deserves it.
It’s a really clever punishment though, I gotta say.
yeah.
I love it.
sounds sick to me. what makes this judge the judge?
That is sick. The question is not whether the man deserves to be paralyzed. What the man deserves, he would get from God if there were no interference from sickos. Those who would wish to maim the man are defining themselves and corrupting themselves. Woe unto them, is the thought that comes to mind.
It would be hard for the bad guy to make reparation if he were paralyzed. Perhaps more fitting would be to make him be a servant to the one he injured. Not that I think that’s the solution…he’d probably suck at servanthood.
Somehow, justice and mercy need to meet. I’m not clever enough to know how to make that happen. That’s why I’m not a judge.
Holy hell! Im not even sure what to say…i have very mixed feelings since i have experienced paralysis firsthand.
Its Islamic country – yes he deserves it by the law.
As a human being – he doesnt deserve the punishment.
Two wrongs never make a right… it just makes for two cripples. And what if the evil guy dies at the hands of the surgeon or worse yet is maimed far worse then the damage he did – ya gonna kill the surgeon next? Where does that end? I agree with Big Toe People- make him a life time servant to the one he injured! That is a life time of hard work caring for someone in that condition! It would certainly teach him about the results of his actions.
In cases of intentional harm eye for an eye is the only true justice.
No, he ought to be made to wait on the man he paralyzed with hand and foot. Now that will instill more repentance and misery than anything else.
Or just be jailed for a looooong time, maybe for fifteen, twenty years. Yeah.
Was the paralysis by accident? In self-defense? That article sure doesn’t give a lot of details (but it’s Fox news. Typical).
“Vengeance is mine saith the lord, I will repay” – romans 12:19. But since they don’t oblige by the good book..I suppose vengeance is theirs (as they think)….God will sort out the rest.
@radicalsounds - I agree with this.